The Alien Autopsy Bootlegging Case 
Alien Autopsy: Bootlegging Litigation Case #1

PLAINTIFFS, Trimark Pictures, Inc., a California corporation, Kiviat Productions, Inc., a California corporation,

DEFENDANTS, People Network, Inc., a Florida cooperation, Charles Harder, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive

The producer of "Alien Autopsy: fact or fiction" and the video sales group, Trimark Productions (responsible for direct marketing of the video), have brought litigation against radio talk show host Chuck Harder. The suit alleges that Harder sold an unauthorized copy of the Alien Autopsy footage. The following information is current for this date. All information contained herein has been confirmed by parties involved in the litigation.

Trimark / Kiviat claim damages because Harder allegedly cut into their profits by selling his video tape. Trimark produced and sold their goal of 100,000 copies of the "Alien Autopsy: fact or fiction" video tape and they’ve never produced any more copies. Fox broadcasted the show on at least 4 different occasion, allowing the public to watch and video tape it for their own use. Harder produced 6000 copies of his tape. selling 5500 (mostly to members of his radio audience) and giving away 500 others. During this time he issued an in-house memo stating , "This tape is a losing venture, stop all production," essentially ending the project

The defendants position is that Trimark met their production goal. So how did Harder’s video impact Trimark sales?

The question of copyright in regards to the Alien Autopsy footage has been deferred, at least for now. The PLAINTIFFS are going after Harder for including a few still shots from Kiviat’s, "Alien Autopsy: fact or fiction" production. These still shots include one of Special Effects artist Stan Winston. The DEFENDANTS are using the Fair Use law as their substantiation for using the still footage. Basically, if you critique a film, book or whatever, you can use a little of the material in your presentation.

I asked my contact if it where possible to go after Santilli for fraud if it turns out the footage is fake? Go after more pertinent information about the Alien Autopsy footage i.e., the cameraman’s name and address, where the film to video transfer was done, dating film with image on it, etc. He said that Santilli’s not "untouchable" if certain things were to fall into place. If the case were to go to jury trail people and material would be subpoenaed.

I ask him about the contracts signed by Trimark and Kiviat giving them at least some rights regarding the footage and how it was marketed. My contact told me that Santilli, and Kiviat to a lesser extent, have presented this footage has the real thing. On many occasions Santilli has stated that he believes the cameraman’s story and that the footage is what the cameraman says it is, purloined government footage.

If it does go to trial my contact said that there are only two was to go:

1: If its real, you can not claim copyright on military film (see below). At present there is no record evidence that this footage is not military, hence, you can’t claim copyright. Harder wins.

2: If they come clean and state its a hoax, they keep the lawsuit open. Why would they do that? Of what value is it to keep it open as a known hoax. Harder wins.


The copyright and abandonment question

Some time ago people questioned weather or not government film footage could be "abandoned". The point being, if its abandoned then anybody can claim rights. I’ve been told that government material can not be abandoned. The government owns it forever, whatever it is. The example given to me was the Zapruder "Kennedy Assignation" film. That film was copyrighted by Zebruter, but the government took it away from him because of the nature of the material. They said everybody had the right to see this important film and use the film in anyway they wanted. An alien autopsy would certainly be as important as the Zapruder film footage.


What is the media thinking?

My contact stated that many media outlets are watching this case very closely. If it goes Harder’s way my contact thinks that the footage will be pretty much fair game for whomever wants to use it. He also stated that in a similar case (he wasn’t specific), courts in England have already stated that the Autopsy footage can not be copyrighted because the US government owns it. Why do they think that? Because Santilli stated it was publicly.

They should have a decision by mid-July. If it goes to a jury trail it would probable be August before a decision would be made. I asked my contact what the law firms involved think about the case and he told me, "It’s a total waste of time and money." Asked if he thinks the footage is real or fake, "I don’t know."


Updated on 08/27/97

Both the Federal and State cases against Chuck Harder and For the People have been dismissed. Tri-Mark Pictures have given up the fight.

At present, Harders attorney are moving, under the Fair Use Act, to get all their (Harder’s) attorney fee's paid for by Tri-Mark. After the court decided that the Alien Autopsy Footage had been presented to the public as US Government (shot) film (presented as such by many video statements made by Kiviat and Santilli), the court ruled that even if the footage isn’t government footage you’ve already told the public is was and sold it as such to the public. So in effect, the government still owns it. There is no abandonment clause regarding government property.

Tri-Mark then tried to go after Harder’s use of 4 still-frames from the Kiviat produced, Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction. The court agreed with Harder that he used it to critique the show and footage. This usage of the stills is allowed under the fair Use Act.

Harder should have an answer regarding his attorney fees by September 18th.

I have to wonder...Does this mean that the Alien Autopsy Footage is fair game for video pirating? We should have an answer soon.  

  • Autopsy Archive Page
    UFO / Alien Information
    Rersearchers and Their Work
    Beyond Roswell